Skip to main content
Glama
PurpleDirective

quillpdf-mcp

by PurpleDirective
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Clean PDF metadata

pdf_clean_metadata
Idempotent

Strip PDF metadata—title, author, subject, keywords, dates, and XMP streams—to anonymize documents before sharing. Runs locally; files never leave your machine.

Instructions

Strip document metadata: clears title, author, subject, keywords, creator and the CreationDate/ModDate in the info dictionary, AND deletes the document-level XMP metadata stream (the copy Acrobat/Word/InDesign write). Note: pdf-lib rewrites /Producer with its own signature on save, so that one field is replaced rather than emptied. Runs entirely on this machine — the file is read and written locally and never sent anywhere.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
forceNoReplace the output file if it already exists (default: refuse, so existing files are never silently clobbered)
inputYesPath to the input PDF
outputYesPath to write the cleaned PDF

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / force
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Replace the output file if it already exists (default: refuse, so existing files are never silently clobbered)",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing the /Producer exception, the exact scope of destruction including the XMP stream, and that processing is entirely local with no network transmission. The clobber-safety default is reinforced in the schema but the local-only guarantee is extra, privacy-relevant context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the action and its scope, followed by the caveat and the privacy note; each of the three sentences carries information an agent cannot get from annotations or schema. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a file-transforming tool with no output schema, the description covers what is removed, the one field that isn't fully emptied, clobber protection, and data locality — everything needed to call it correctly and predict the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so input/output/force are fully documented structurally; the force-clobber semantics are already in the schema. The description adds the Producer rewrite caveat, which is behavioral rather than parameter-level, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (strip) and resource (document metadata), then enumerates the exact fields cleared (title, author, subject, keywords, creator, CreationDate/ModDate) plus the XMP stream. This is unmistakably distinct from every sibling (merge/split/rotate/protect/etc.), none of which touch metadata.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intended scenario (removing identifying metadata before sharing) is only implied by the enumeration of authorship fields; there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no named alternative among the 14 siblings. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools